but Aristocratical Under the New Testament the Lord appointed no visible Monarch on earth to be an officer in his church for our last appeal in dubious cases is regulated by that well known Scripture Matth. 18. 17. If he will See Bish Laud. againstâ— Fisher not hear the church let him be to thee as a publican Now it is absurd to say that this should be the sense of it tell the Pope for in no language the word Church can signifie a visible Monarch Secondly The council of Jerusalem maketh not for this for not only proceed they upon Scripture grounds but although they were infallible men yet none of them took the Papal way and the government was not Monarchical It seemed good to the holy Ghost and us Thirdly Church power is Ministerial Matth. 20. 25. 26. 2. Cor. 1. 24. 1. Pet. 5. 3. but Monarchy is Magisterial therefore it agreeth not with church power And when Papists reason for the power of the church and mention councils the argument may be thus propounded church officers councils have been appointed to rule and order the affairs of the house of God Ergo they may do what they will and who can say unto them what dost thou I deny the consequence Ergo the Pope is one of these officers it is absolutly refused And this is summa totalis of the prolix answer to the fourth question which may be taken away with a word Ergo if the word make not for them theâ— they may betake themselves to their own traditions and rule by them That is denyed also by us And suppose they should give the Law to their own Vassals will it therefore follow that they empire it over the whole Christian-church And seeing all churches are bound to a rule can any be infallible which have need of a rule When you make the Pope your church do ye not build your faith on him Is this like the foundation Eph. 2. 20. What is this but to make your faith humane And is it not absurd to say that Alexander the siâ—â—h Pope Iohn 22. in the cathedra were infallible as the Prophets and Apostles in dyting Scripture they cannot blush who speak so Fifthly As for the fifth particular viz. That place of Augustin cont ep fund cap. 5. I would not have believed the Scripture Pro. An. 5 unless the authority of the church had moved me Our Divines have answered fully long ago so it is a threed bare argument for he speaketh not there concerning the formal reason why Scripture is believed but concerning the mean and motive by which intrants are brought at first to the knowledge of the Scripture I mean the consused knowledge of the Scripture as when a man delivereth a letter he may tell from whom it is but the faith of it is from the subscription So here then by the church he understandeth not the church or Pope of Rome but the Primitive-church of the faithful which did hear see Christ and his Apostles So saith Durand †Dur lib. dist 24. qu. 1. he had to do with the Manichees who would make him believe their Gospel No saith he the testimony of those who did see with their eyes hear with their ears and handle the word of life is to be preferred to your assertion and this is a motive which made me at first quite Manichism and close with the Gospel of Christ so speaketh Melchior Canus lib. 2. de loc cap. 8. therefore it maketh nothing for the imperious supremacie of the Pope or Church in matters of faith fot there is a difference between coÌ„muma motivafidei and formalis ratio credendi See learned and perspicuous Dr. Barron against Turnebul Tract 4. pag. 188. Who hath unanswerably demonstrated this truth and so interpreteth these words of Augustin The testimony of the church is a principle inductive and a motive to new intrants to read hear and consider the holy Scriptures and it produceth only an humane faith the inward testimony of the holy Spirit is the principle effective of divine faith and the Scriptures themselves are the formal reason and terminative principle whereinto divine faith is resolved as a building upon its foundation Eph. 2. 20. To conclude this answer We judge that the pure Gospel Church is and should be the pronouncer of divine sentence from the Scripture that the authority of Councils should be inrerposed for making men willing and obedient to the divine law so should the Magistrat concurre in his station for that effect But the church of Rome is not pure nor like that which once it was in the Apostle Paul his time and at no time could she be called the Universal church far less now Albeit then her faith was spoken of throughout all the world Is this a good argument the faith of the Church of Brittain is mentioned throughout all the reformed churches of Transylvania Hungaria Polland Germany Bohaemia Flanders France and Helveâ—ia therefore it is the Universal-church no we claim no more but to be a Sister church to these in the confession of faith according to the Scriptures †Alb. Pighius lib. 6. Eccl. hierarc cap. 3. and all together make up the Universal-church And any one of these is preferable to the church at Rome as it is now corrupted and apostatized Will ye hear Albertus Pighius Quis unquam per Romanam Ecclesiam intellexit universalem who ever did by the Roman Church understand the Church universal Why do ye then speak so and ambitiously empire it over all the world Question fifth Seeing no Scripture is of Pa. Qu. 5 privat interpretation 2. Pet. 1. 20. should privat men take upon them to interpret the same Answer The sense of that text is no scripture Pro. An. is the indytment of a privat spirit but proceedeth from the holy Ghost for it followeth holy men of GOD spake as they were moved by the holie Ghost and it came not of old by the will of men Therefore it is no ways to be thought that privat men should be barred from searching the Scripture seeing Christ Jesus commanded the contrar Io. 5. 39. This was spoken to a whole multitude of persecuting Jews The word is the sword of the spirit Eph. 6. 17. should any privat man be disarmed amongst his foes And blessed is he whither privat or publict who meditateth in the law of the Lord day and night Ps 1. Reply In your fifth answer you grant with the Apostle that no prophecie of the Scripture Pa. Rep. is of any privat interpretation so should you grant also that the Scriptures cannot be rightly expounded of every privat spirit and fancie of the vulgar Reader but by the same spirit wherewith they were writren which resolveth in the Church And I am very confident no learned or wise Protestant will allow any privat man to expound scripture against the common consent of the whole Catholick Church wherein they were immediatly before But you insist that it is
We are bound as Christians not only to bear the scourge of tongues but more also for the Gospels sake when called to it Augustin said to Petilian his tongue was not the fan I am a man in the floore of Christ and if good grain will be laid up in the Garner blow the wind as it will So we may say to such râ—ilers yea if the adversarie would write not only pasquils but a book of this kind we may bind it to our shoulders and wear it as our crown For the Lord will in due time wipe of the rebuke of his people Is 25. 8 which they bear for his Name That saying of Bernard is sweet Cimbae me comitto in tanto discrimine confidens in Domine qui pro illo recte lâ—quentibus pro illo laborautibus dicit Adsum 〈◊〉 run the reaâ—k trusting in the Lord who hath promised presence to all who speak and act rightlie for him And heroickly Luther to the same purpose if truth be on my side quidni pro viribus agam why should â—â—ot do my uttermost sim homicida sim adulter â—â—â—do silentii non arguar dum Christus patitur Let them call me what they wil if I be not guilty of sinful silence when Christ suffereth in his truth It is a very smal matter upon this account to be judged of men 1. Cor. 4. 3. these things are light and heavy as we ordinarily take them If this strain of reproaching did siste at us it were not so much but they reproach the written word of GOD and sentence it boldly of imperfection contrar to Psalm 19. 7. 2. Tim. 3. 15. 17. and of obscuritie as if it were not a light and lantherue to our paths Psalm 119. 105. Yea they shamelesly averre that the authority of the Church and Pope of Rome is greater to us nor Scripture Is it not lamentable that men called Christians for pompous selfish interests should laboriously studie to cast aspersions upon the unâ—ported word of GOD and depretiate it so in the world May not this render Popery suspicious to any knowing man that the abettors thereof decline the written word of GOD to be the sole umpire of faith and manners and endeavour to discredit it before the Nations which is the touch-stone of truth and best fence we have against Satan and all his complices such non sunt audiendi saith holy Aug. Confes lib. 6. cap. 5. they should not in this be heard far less obeyed Their second device when they are pressed with the truth is to coin evil grounded distinctions and with this ley money to make merchandise of poor simple souls Needle headed men have strangely acted their inventions herein and cruÌ„bled Gospel truths thus that he is now thought the best and most learned Papist who can findout subtile subterfugies and receptacles against plain Scripture verities So that the Romanists are the great foxes which eat up the tender vines Other Sectaries who separat themselves from the Church builded on the foundation Eph. 2. 20. and deface the doctrine which is according to Godliness are of lesser magnitude That ye may know what sort of proppes uphold their rotten building take these five instances First When we prove that the Scripture is the rule of faith this they grant in part but say they it is a partial not the total rule they must sowder somewhat of their own tradition to it erre they acknowledge it for a rule This is a reasonless shift If the rule be not total and perfect in its own kinde for its own ends it is no rule at all but a semi-rule regula nec appositionem nec ablationem admittit saith Theophilact on the 3. chap. to the Philip. Nothing can be added to or taken from a rule the law of nature the law of reason are sufficient for their own ends so is the written word of GOD for salvation When we say Secondly that the word of GOD cannot have authority from men therefore the Scripture is judge of the Church and not the Church of the Scripture They answer by a leaden distinction that it hath authority from the Church in respect of us but not in respect of it self This is a reasonless evasion for all authority is an act quoad extra and relative to us The Scriptures have excellency and dignity internal but all its authority is external and relative to men So that distinction is null If the Scripture hath its authority from the testimony of their Church then their faith must be ultimatly resolved into their Church testimony as more authoritative nor the word of GOD. Propter quod unumquodque est tale illud ipsum est magis tale Therefore Popish faith by this maxime is not divine but ecclesiastick and humane Now the Church and faith of Believers should be builded immediatly upon the doctrine of the Prophets and Apostles Iesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone Eph. 2. 20. Therefore the Pope with his traditions cannot found the Church nor the faith of Christians other foundation can no man lay then that which is laid 1. Cor. 3. 11. To this they returne a distinction that Iesus Christ is the principal and the Pope the secondary foundation seeing it was said to Peter upon this rock I will build my Church This subterfuge in like the rest if this was said to Peter personally as Tertul. de praescrip thinketh then not to his successours suppose the Pope were the man a personal individual prerogative is incoÌ„municable If it was not personal but to him and his successours then if the Apostle Paul were living the Pope behoved to be above him in dignity and Church prerogative by reason Peter was above him and he succeedeth to his superioritie This to any discerner may appear absurd Beside the Church is builded on the foundation of the Prophets and Apostles Eph. 2. 20. then not upon one Apostle take the words as ye will The true meaning of these words upon this rock I will build my Church is this the confession of Peter concerning Iesus Church the Son of the living GOD was a â—ock on which the Church was builded This interpretation is authorized by Augustin who interpreteth the words thus Tract ult in Iohan. serm 13. de verbis Apost he giveth also strong reason for it lib. 1. retract cap. 21. non enim dictum est Petro tu es petra sed tu es Petrus which reason Valentia challengeth in vain disp 1. to 3. quaest 1. punc 7. Further there câ—nnot be two foundations if we speak properly If no man can lay another as the Scripture speaketh why should it be asserted Christ Iesus alone set forth in the doctrine of Prophets and Apostles is that solid foundation on which we build all our salvation he is that sure foundation laid in Zion and no wayes can this without blasphemie be applyed to the Pope seeing the Apostle Peter maketh application of it to Christ only 1. Peter 2. 6. Thirdly When we
Ghost proceedeth from the Father and the Son is clear in Scripture Io. 14. 16. 17. Ioh. 15. 26. Io. 16. 7. Gal. 4. 6. Fourthly That there be two Natures in Christ is clear Io. 1. 14. The Word was made flesh and dwelt amongst us And Augustin who refuteth Rebaptization mantained by Donatists maketh no use of unwritten Traditions against that errour but of that Scripture Eph. 4. 5. One Lord one Faith one Baptism for he sayeth reâ—urrantus ad fontem viz. Scripturas let us return to the Scriptures which are the fountain then citeh that text mentioned Tom. 7. lib. 5. cap. 26. and Ordination is expressed in that Tense which by vertue of the word excludeth Reiteration It being a matter of Order if it be once done according to the rule 1. Tim. 4. 14. it is enough neither should this be debated here for all that we assert is that all points necessar to salvation are comprehended in Scripture either expresly or cosequentially by general or particular precepts Perinde sunt ea quae ex Scriptuâ—is Colliguntur atque ea quae scribuntur saith Nazianzen †Naz. de Theol. orat 5. i. e. These things which by necessary consequence are deduced from Scripture are of the same force with these which are written in it Let the Reader judge whither Popery be a safe way which buildeth our main foundations upon humane testimonie and derogats so much from the Scriptures of GOD. Yea ere they will give them their due rather will they strengthen Anti-Trinitarians Arrians Anti-Sacramentarians Anti-Sabbatarians Donatists and Separatists The Lord grant repentance to such who leaving the truth have a massed a body of errors Thirdly For that amongst many Versions Pa. Red. 3 yea and corruptions of Scripture which all do acknowledge and each sect imputeth to its adversaries it seemeth very hard to discern authentick Scripture many of the originals being lost and the extract comming to the hands of very few and few understand the Hebrew and Greek tongues wherein they are written and yet of this first of all we must be understood and assured if we will not waver in matters of fâ—â—th Answer first This is a digression to another Pro. An. 1 question concerning the Version for I would ask if there be any right Version at all this will not be denyed for the old Latine translation is acknowledged by you then it is the rule of faith and no humane testimony What doth this arguing prove against the point there be some corrupted Versions Ergo the Original rightly translated must not determine my faith some men are evil cloathed therefore a man should not be well cloathed against the cold there is no consequence there Further this objection maketh the word of God useles to men Now is it like that all should be commanded to go to the Law and Testimony to search the Scriptures if they could not be had by any Yea this Objection spoileth Providence of its rent of praise which hath appeared so visibly in the preservation of the Scriptures And we bless his Name for it that we have the Originals in Hebrew and Greek and so pure a translaon that if any will compare them they wil find great faithfulnes and skill in the translators But to answer this impertinent Objection An. 2. more fully we say that the Version is a Commentary be way of interpretation and we make neither the translatioÌ„ of the 70. nor of the vulgar Latine authentick but wheÌ„ we find errours in either we go ad judicem incorâ—uptum hoc est primaevam linguam to the uncorrupted Judge that is the first language so much speaketh your Acosta lib. 2. cap. 10. and in this rightly But yee Romanists have preferred the vulgar Latine to the Hebrew and Greek whereas it is a corrupt translation as some of your own testifie and corrupteth the doctrine witness that one text for many Gen. 3. 15. Ipsa conteret caput tuum She shal break thy head which is contrar to the Hebrew hu to the 70 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and putteth the Virgin Mary for Christ so overturneth a foundation Pagâ—â—n in his Preface to the Hebrew Grammar saith Optarem ut ostenderent mihi Germanam translationem quae enim pâ—ssim legitur non est Hieronymi incorrupta translatio i. e. I wish they would shew me the Genuin translation for that which is coÌ„monly received is not Hieroms pure translation and Sixtus Senensis Bib. lib. 8. sub finem sayeth Multa ibi sunt parum accommodate versa There are many things in it not fitly rendered so that our Version will be found as good as any And we are not hindered to run to the fountains in case of doubting we make use of these streams as helps and the Version is an humane instrument leading us to the well-head of the Original tongues Dei verbum non est linguased doctrina The word of GOD is not the language but the doctrine saith Rivet in his Isag cap. 1. and we need Grammar more then Tradition for understanding thereof Reason fourth Many cannot read Scripture and more as yet do not understand it the Pa. Rea. 4 Scripture then or written word cannot be the Rule of Faith to these poor ignorants but their Churches or Pastors authority And so it seemeth the Scripture cannot be the rule of faith to all persons or in all points or of any point contained in it self untill I be first assured of some infallible rule that this translation I rely upon is conform to the original in all points and this Bible I am reading is the authentick word of God Answer First This maketh nothing against Pro. An. 1 our assertion wherein it is only said that the Scripture is the rule of faith to a right discerner which is granted by the Arguer in the next reason It is Regula regulativa to all apt and meet to decide all controversies if men have ears to hear what the Spirit saith to the Churches if it be not Regula regulans to some who are ignorant and unstable Vitium ost in Organo the fault is in the Organ It is ill argued to say the Sun shineth not because blind men see it not Secondly They who cannot read the Scriptures An. 2. can hear them read and it is more easie for dark ignorant ones to hear the word read and explained in their own language then to travel from Scotland to Rome to hear the sentence of the Pope for they could not understand the language in which it is delivered they cannot travel through their decretals and acts They know not if it be a lawful Pope who pronounceth the sentence And by their Confessours here they may be and are deceived Thirdly It is the priviledge and promise An. 3. of God to open the heart to enlighten the eyes by the word read and preached but no where hath the word of man this prerogative See Is 32. 3. 4. and Is 35. 5. 6. 7. 8. These are Gospel
directly answered by me whither on man or many should be judge of controversies To this he saith I dare not answer because I will not grant the power either to the high Bishop or general council nevertheless he findeth this to have been the constant practise of the Church both in the Old and New Testament established by the express word of God and received by the Fathers in all ages for in the Old Testament from Deut. 17. from 8. to 13. we read that GOD did command the people in matters of controversie to go to the Priests Levits and judge who should be in those days appointed by him for that end saying and thou shalt do according to the sense of the law which they shal teach thee and according to the judgement which they shal tell thee Remark he saith not according to the sense of the law which thou shalt read but which they shal teach thee not taken according to the privat judgement and spirit but according to the judgmeÌ„t which they shal tel thee where God promiseth out of their mouth judicii veritateÌ„ truth and verity in judgement or as you turn it sentence of judgement See for this also 2. Chr. 19. 8. where Jehosophat established what was first instituted Viz. a council of Levits Priests and chief fathers of Israel to judge not only between brethren and brethren blood and blood but also betwixt law and coÌ„mandments statutes and judgements Not leaving law and commandments to the peoples privat reading and interpretation as you do in your rule of faith In the 11. verse he concludeth thus Amaziah is over you in all matters of the Lord where it is evident that the council and chief Priest is established judge of controversie and not the written Word as every one readeth and expoundeth In the New Testament again you have this practise clearly set down Acts. 15. Where Paul and Barnabas though Apostles themselves go up to Jerusalem about the question of circumcising the Gentiles converted to the faith And there was holden the first council in which this is decided not out of Scripture but by the authority of the Council it self It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and us said they having the assured promise of the assistance of the Holy Ghost as the Church hath at all time Wherefore after the Apostles councils have decided with the same authority and upon the same infallible ground of the Holy Ghosts assistance promised to the Church Many controversies are acknowledged by Protestants for points of faith without express passage of Scripture Marcion teaching that Baptism should be conferred more then once and Donatists that Baptism conferred by Hereticks should be reiterated as invalid are condemned in the council holden at Rome under Melchiadâ—s Pope in the year 313. now what passage of Scripture I pray you is for this Sâ—bellius putting one person only in the God-head is câ—ndemned in the council of Alexandria under Pope Cornelius in the year 319. but scripture maketh no mention of persons Nestorius putting two persons in Christ is condemned in the Generall Council holden at Ephesus under Pope Caelestin the year 434. Yet neither doth the Scripture speak of thâ—â— The Monotheliâ—s giving to Christ one will in two Natures are condemned in the third general Câ—uncil holden at Constantinople under Pope Agathon the year 679. albeit there be no formal scripture for this So you see it belongeth both in the Old and New Testament to the high Priest and general Council to decide controversie either by Scripture if there be any passage clear for that point or without Scripture by Apostolick tradition conserved in the Church which scripture it self warranteth 2. Thess 2. 15. Hold fast the traditions which ye have learned either by word or our epistle but it seemeth you care not who be condemned or by whom if you take away all power on earth to condemne your selves Every Protestant will be condemned by none but Scripture and yet will make none judge of the Canon Version and sense of Scripture but himself All your answer is that we grant the Promulgation of the law to the pure Gospel Church but you shew not what is this pure Gospel Church neither can you infallibly prove the purity of the Gospel it self or that there is a Gospel or the true sense of the Gospel but by the Catholick Church her authority Hear Aug. contta Ep. fund cap. 5. Where he saith I my self would not have believed the Gospel were it not that the authority of the Church moved me to it Now the Catholick Church is that whose faith is spread through all the world in the Apostle Paul his time which maketh her to be justlie called the Catholick Roman Church and whose faith hath been in all ages since Christ which all the records of the Protestant writters witness of the Roman Church wherein the succession of Popes Bishops Councils is made conspicuous to all who have written Chronology or Church history in every age none whereof make mention of your Church or of men professing your tenets before Luther and Calvin from whom ye dissent in many things Answer first This is a prolix reply the Pro. Du. 1 substance of which might have been taken up in seven or eight lines As it is spacious so it is an impertinent rapsodie and like a beggers cloak clouted here and there with divers parcells without any method or cohesion It seemeth to have been taken out of some Index and cast in here to fill the page For the answer was That the promulgation of the law is not denyed to the pure Gospell-Church which is not the Roman-Church for it is impure Is not this a direct answer You prove that there hath been a Ministerial-Church in the old and new Testament which we doe not deny but this is the point did they so pronounce sentence and decide Controversies that all discretive judgement was taken from people or called they themselves infallible whether they had scripture warrand or not Or wil the promise of presence to the Apostles Prophets and penners of Scripture in measure and duration agree to any Church Officers now on Earth Or should promises made to the Universal-Church agree to any particular Church such as Rome Or will promises made to the collective body of the Church agree to the representative unless these be proved you fight with your own shadow For we are much for the authority of Christs Church and think that her judgment of old and late should sway privat men unless they can prove by scripture or sound reason that she erreth We are much for the authority of all lawful Councils and we give them all reverence in regard of the authority of their constitution but if they depart from the scriptures we owe them not active obedience Well speaketh our learned Camero tom 1. tract de infallibilitate ecclesiae So oft as any thing is decreed by a Council or assembly of men appointed by lawfull autharity
not to be thought that privat mâ—n should be barred from searching the scripture seeing it is contrar to that text John 5. 39. where if by searching the Scripture you mean the reading and interpretation of it that cannot be the sense of it For the Apostle Paul saith 1. Cor. 12. GOD hath set in the Church Prophets Apostles Doctors c. Then he addeth are all Apostles are all Prophets are all Doctors do all interpret Then this doth not belong to every man to read and interpret Scripture but to search the deep meaning and sense thereof from the Doctors of the Church For the Jews did search the scripture reading and hearing it read in their Synagogues and yet did deny Christ to be the Messiah which scripture doth clearly testifie Even as Protestants do read Scripture and in it the real presence the power to forgive sins granted to men justification by faith and good works anointing the sick virginity preferred to marriage and yet deny all this Wherefore as Christ exhorteth the Jews to do it with greater reflection and attention not superficially turning and shuffling it over as Protestants do so do I exhort them The word is the sword of the spirit upon which you inferre should any privat man be disarmed amongst his soes So let me tell you that the Apostle calling it a sword sheweth that it should not be put into a mad mans hand or in the hand of a fool i. e. Poor ignorants who as Peter saith wrest it to their own destruction and yet this is your consequence if it should be granted to all privat men Children and fools get not arms amongst their foes wherewith they might rather wrong themselves then their enemies but are under the protection of their Paedagogues and attendants And so the ignorant should not easily handle the sword of the word being ignorant and only capable of the letter but should receive the sense thereof from the Church and her Pastors that it may be to them an arme of defence Pro. Duply 1 Answer first All this is answered fully in the return of the first question to which place I referre the Reader lest I make idle repetition If the rule of right reasoning had been observed nothing of this ought to have come in formerly but here in its own proper place I distinguished betwixt privat men and privat interpretations then betwixt the extraordinar gift of interpreting and the ordinar Thirdly Betwixt the priviledge and the exercise Privat men have the priviledge to search the Scriptures you say it should be by no other then doctors if that be true then the Lord Jesus did not direct the people who heard him to use prayer and meditation for knowing the Scriptures but to go to their rulers Scribes and Pharisees who did what they could to make the Scriptures testifie against him and all his I appeal to the conscience or reason of any if this exposition on the place can hold water Or if an indvidual act such as this being performed by another is an obedience to a command If this exposition be good then when the Lord pronounceth the man blessed who meditats in the Law day and night the sense of it must be if his Pastors do it for him it is enough Who will admit this But the one is as true as the other Secondly You contradict your self for once you say that privat men should not interpret Pro. An. 2 Scripture but take it from the mouth of the church then immediatly you exhort them to do it not superficially but with attention and we exhort to no more Thirdly You make all the people who are Pro. An. 3 privat men mad fools and Children by your coÌ„parison in whose hand the word of GOD should not be put then it must be taken from them and how agreeth this with the former exhortation What if this were told to the Kings and Queens who are Popâ—sh By the testimony of your doctors ye are all de clared unfit to rule others for mad men fools children caÌ„not govern In effect ye guide theÌ„ as such in divine matters for ye muzle and blindfold the people all this passeth under the notion of Paedagogy But sad is the case of such pupils â—f they knew what belonged to their peace Let ignorants be catechised and trained in the ways of GOD this may make them more discerning of the sense and meaning of the word of God Seneca telleth Coenant nobiscum quidam quia sunt docti alii ut sint doâ—li Some men suppe with us because they are learned others that they may be learned The testimonies of the Lord make wise the simple should they then be deprived of them Question sixth Ye agree not about the Pa. Qu. 6 rule for some cast at the Epistle of James others receive it Answer None of the pure reformed do Pro. Qu. so it was only rejected by some Lutherians in which we do not owne them Secondly The number of Scripture books is not the question but whither these mantained by all be the rule of saith Seeing all men are murable creatures and at their best state vanity Popes clash with Popes Councils with Councils Pulpits with Pulpits let any judge whither it be safest that the revealed will of God be our rule or the dictats of self contradicting men Reply You say none of these pure reformed Pa. Reply reject the Epistle of James and you disclaime the Lutherians who do so and they you for I am confident they will acknowledge none for pure reformers who take an Epistle for scripture which they hold to be none Then you say the number of Scripture books is not the question Sir you move questions as you please but hear Mr. Hooker one of your most learned Protestants lib. 1. Eccl. pol. Sect. 14. pag. 36. of these things necessar saith he the very chief is to know what books we esteem holy which is impossible for it self to teach Apply this to your only determiner of faith in your first answer And truely I think this should be the first question of all to the pure reformed according to the pure word of God as you cal them which are the books of the pure word of GOD Now if you answer these are mantained by all which you make the rule of faith how few books of Scripture shal be this rule if any at all For there be few or none whereof some have not doubted or flatly denyed Saint Augustin contra Faustum Manichaeum and lib. de mor. Eccl. cap. 1. Saith the Manichees did deny Moses and the Prophets the Jews did deny the New Testament What books of Scripture are mantained by all For by that you make the consent of all judge of canonical Scripture how then can you disclaim tradition and say immediatly after men are mutable creatures and at their best state vanity Seeing upon the consent of men ye take up your rule of faith and number of Scripture books I know other Protestants
alleadge for this that the books of Scripture like the Sun shew themselves to be such to him who hath the spirit But I would ask at such why the Rev. St. James Epistle the second of St. Peter and two of St. John did not shew themselves to be Scripture to Luther that spiritual man and the Protestants very first Apostle in the work of reformation in the end you say Let any judge whither it be safest that the revealed will of God be your rule and determiner or the dictats of self contradicting creatures Where you seem to rubbe on Catholicks But Sir this toucheth not them at all for they profess not to believe self-contradicting creatures but the unanimous consent of Councils and fathers or the Catholick Church known to be the only Church established by Christ and his Apostles and by the continued succession of Popes Bishops and Pastors the unity universality and gifts of miracles in all ages c. Which Christ hath called the ground and pillar of truth 1. Tim. 3. 15. and against which he assureth us the gates of hell shal not prevail Math. 16. 18. and which he hath commanded us to hear otherwise to be holden as heathens and publicans Math. 18. 17. so you see that the written word maketh the Church our judge which we should obey and that ye who make so much of the written word do not believe it when ye do not obey her And here I remarke that Protestant Ministers and preachers deceive the people in that they ground their faith on the written word only and Roman Catholicks say they on humane tradition and their Churches authority which being composed of men is subject to errour Whereas the contrar is true for Roman Catholicks believe nothing which the written word believing both the tradition of the Church and Apostles doth not expresly warrand As for the Church what is more expresly said then what I have cited both to prove that we are bound to hear her Mat. 18. 18. and hold her authority infallible Math. 16. 18 and the house of God which is the pillar and ground of truth 1. Tim. 3. 15. Neither doth it avail you to say this is not said of the Roman Church which is not the universal Church but a particular one a strumpet c. For we speak not of any particular Church when we say that the Church is infallible nor when we say the Roman the Catholick do we understand the particular Church at Rome But that Church which professeth constantly the Romans faith spread in saint Pauls time through all the world As we call yet the Roman Empire that which hath its seat in Vien of Austria Yea Protestants calling their own the reformed Church cannot say but we have one Church on earth which Christ commanded us to hear constantly And if the reformed Church be the true Church then she must have taken the place from that church which was deformed and had fallen into an errour and so deserved no more to be called the pillar and ground of truth or to be heard Moreover the very pillars of the Protestant Religion grant all the world to be in an errour before themselves and so against the express written Word must deny the infallibility of any Church whatever For Calv. Instit lib. 4. cap. 18. saith they made all the Kings and People of the earth drunk from the first to the last and Hospinian epist 41. saith Luthers separation was from all the world White in his defence chap. 37. saith Popery was a leprosie breeding so universally in the church that there was no visible company of men free from it Jewel in his Sermon on Luke 11. The whole world Princes and people were overwhelmed by ignorance and bound by oath to the Pope which if it be true that the Church in former ages did erre the reformed Church may erre that themselves do not deny Thence it followeth clearly that the Protestant Church is not the house of GOD called the pillar and ground of truth that she is not Christs Church against which the gates of hell shal not prevail that none are bound to hear her in matters of faith being subject to errour And so Protestants may well desire men to read the Scripture and believe what they found there but not urge any man to follow their doctrine but in so far as they find it conforme to Scripture which all Roman Catholicks protest they do not As for traditions are we not commanded to hold them in the clear written Word 2. Thess 2. 15. Hold the traditions which ye have learned whither by word or our epistle Protestants read documents but documents by word and traditions are the same thing on which place Chrysost saith It is evident that the Apostle did not deliver all things by writ but many things by word which are worthy of credit as wel as the other That is Christs word as well as his writ therefore we call them divine and Apostolical traditions Aug. lib. 5. de Trinit cap. 23. speaking of rebaptization The Apostle saith he commanded nothing of it but that customâ— which is believed to proceed from the Apostle is opposed against Cyprian in it as many things are which the whole Church holdeth and therefore are believed to be commanded by the Apostles though not written Aâ—d in the first age saint Dennis chap. 1. speaking of the Ecclesiastick hierarchy saith These our chief captains of Priestly function did deliver to us the chiefest and supersubstantial points partly in written partly in unwritten institutions Epiph. Haeres 61. is of the same minde we must hold traditions saith he for the Scripture hâ—th not all things and Tertullian de praescrip grounds his faith on the authority of the Church and what tradition I believe saith he I received from the present Church the present Church from the primitive that from the Apostles the Apostles from Christ Here I hope you see you must either admit traditions as necessar in themselves and infallible in their authority or else disclaim both Scripture and Fathers All that Protestants can say either against the authority of the Church in general Councils or Apostolick traditions delivered by her is that all her decisions and traditions flow from men and so are not infallible But I answer neither were the Prophets Apostles Evangelists who penned the Scripture but men yet I hope their writtings are not fallible or subject to errour Because they were inspired directly and assisted by the Spirit of God The Fathers of the Church have to this day that promise verified to them Math. 28. 20. which was made as well to their successours as to themselves As for that some Protestante speak of an invisible Church composed of the Elect it is but a shift to delude the ignorant for as it is a Maxime of law Idem est non esse non apparere i. e. it is the same not to be and not to appear to be in the matter of any
pretended right so in the matter of doctrine an invisible Church and no Church is the same For if I cannot see nor know the Elect as being invisible to the eye of man so I cannot know that the Church composed of them speaketh to me or that this Doctrine I hear of any man is infallible more then that he is one of the Elect. Answer I am weary transseribing a number Protest Duply of wordâ— without weight that is a compleet rapsodie and no return to the former question If such digressions were heard in the School the Writter behoved to be sore censured The question was how the Scripture could be the square Seeing all agree not about the number of the books some cast at the Epistle of James as the Lutherans And the answer I gave was that although some Lutherans differre from us about the authority of that epistle yet we both agree here that uncontroverted scripture is the determiner And for the numerick question it was sufficiently answered in the second answer to the first querie so we needed not this tauâ—oligie to make the Reader nauseat If I had to do with a Lutheran then I could prove the divine authority of that Epistle but you do not deny it therefore to what purpose should I insist on that subject against you Mr. Hooker whom you cite maketh nothing against us as is alledged for that which he sayes is first that the light of reason rightly managed is a requâ—sit mean for the knowledge of scripture books and what sayeth that against us seeing we suppose the Readers of Scripture to be â—ational men that reason in its own line may be helpful to them for understanding scripture Secondly Mr. Hooker directly disclaimeth your traditions page 86. and affirmeth that they who betake themselves to that testimonie as divine have not the truth but are in an errour Thus he condemneth you as erronious so it had been your advantage to have spared this tradition neither was it needful to tell us that the Manichees denyed Moses and the Jews the New Testament We have to do with Papists who hold all the books of the Old and New Testament which we hold for Canonick At lest what some others make disputable as Melchior Canus telleth us you put it out of dispute so you are not in bona fide to reason about their number with us seeing ye question none which we mantaine albeit we justly call in question Apocryphal writtings which ye put into the Canon Is it not safer to regulate our faith by these uncontroverted Scriptures then by the dictats of mutable self-contradicting Popes When Church Rulers have been fully corrupted Believers have continued orthodoxe as in the time of the Arrian persecution The Fathers who lived the first 300. year believed without either Pope or General Council as propounders of their faith For then there was no such pretending to infallible supremacy They had no infallible testimony from the Church they acknowledged not her testimony to be such And for ought I can learn theâ—e be no testimony of your Church nor statute enacting her testimony to be infallible If so it is nor according to you de fide however ye make a great noise amongst people with it And if all the faith you have depend upon the testimony of the present Church which is your doctrine your faith is not one with Abrahams faith for the word of God did beget his faith but it is the testimony statute of the Trent Council that begettâ—th yours and I would gladly hear from you whither there was universal consent there or not Such clashing and pocket orders as the author of that history telleth to the world will not permit you to say without a blush that the Council was unanimous and Gospel-like in their way Therefore unless it be against us all their otheracts are made up of ambiguous stuffe like the Delphian responses this is purposely coÌ„trived to cover debates with general termes And if their testimony make the word of GOD Scripture to me living under Popery what rule had they for their faith who made these conclusions Their own testimony could not be the cause of their own belief if you say that the testimonie of the ancient Church was their rule then ye go contrar to your own Doctors who declare that the present Church of Rome is above all former councils and their authority dependeth on her testimony See Bell. lib. de Eccl. cap. 10. Valentia Tom. 3. disp 1. quest 1. Further that the supream power of judging is not in the Council but in the Pope that he is above a general Council that he cannot be subject to it See Bell. lib. 2. de Concil cap. 17. Valentia tom 3. disp 1. Suarez disp 5. de fide and your own Vives in his comment on Augustins 20. book de civit Dei cap. 26. telleth us how little ye make of Councils or of the ancient Church when they militat against you Illa demum videntur iis Concilia quo in rem suam faeiunt reliqua non pluris estimantur quam commenta mulierum in textrina aut thermis i. e. These appear to be Councils to them which make for them the rest are no more esteemed by them then the sables of old women in the weavers shop or sloves Brisâ—â—erius writting against Collag a Jansenist as he is cited by learned Dalleus †See Dâ—lleus de usu Patrum saith Councils are literae mortuae nisi animentur à praesenti Ecclesia i. e. They are dead letters if they be not animated by the present Church This appeareth to be true from experience for ye agree not with the primitive either in doctrine worship or government The ancients thought that Images should not be in the Church See Epiph. epist ad Iohannem Hierosolymitanum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cum vidissem Imaginem penderâ— in Ecclesia contra authoritatem Scripturae i. e. When I saw an Image hang in the Church contrar to the authority of Scripture how grieved was I. But the Council of Trent appointed them to be had in houses and Churches and that debitus honor reverentia Sess 25. eis impertiatur i. e. Due honor and worship be given to them The Fathers thought that the Virgin Marie was conceived in sin so saith Ambrose Augustin Chrysostom as Melchior Canus de loc Theol. lib. 7. telleth The Council of Trent Sess 5. will not conclude heâ— under Original sin The Fathers excluded Tobias Judith Wisdom Ecclesiasticus and both the books of the Maccabees out of the canon of Scripture So did Hierom in his prologue ad libros Solomonis Epiph. lib. de Pond mens cap. 2. pag. 162. Gregorie Nazianzen câ—rm 3. Athanasius epist fest But the Council of Trent anathematizeth them who exclude these books out of the Canon Sess 4 Baptism was delayed till Pasch and Pentecost in the primitive Church it is not so with you The 4. Council of Carthage did forbide women
Rome is it We allow Ministerial helps for expounding Scripture but do not renounce the judgement of discretion in Christians And concerning interpretation of Scripture infallibility of Pope or Council and the priviledges of the universal Church enough is formerly mentioned And these your so often repeated cavils are aboundantly refuted and what you say you did in your Reply to my sixt Answer is refuted by me in my Duply thereto For this is Crambe recocta Lastly You cite some Fathers of the first 3. ages against our negatives and would hold is in hand that they mantained them as Articles of their Creed But ye cite spurious Authours as Origens Threni or Lament Cyprian de Coena St. Andrew St. Dennis c. some of which your own writters call in question see Bellurmin de Script Eccl. pag. 83. de Euchar. lib. 2. cap. 9. Iustâ—n Martyr †In his Apology to Antonius the Emperour is brought for transubstantiation which is a manifest untruth For the words of Iustin Martyr are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. i. e. That sanctified Food wherewith our blood and flesh by conversion is nourished iâ— that which we are taught to be the Body and Blood of Christ If it be food wherewith out blood and flesh is nourished then where iâ— your Transubstantiation There it is bread in substance and the Body of Christ in signification and Sacramental relation If you please by this you may be convinced of your errour ignorance and boldness It is as untrue that Cyprian said or meaned so except in a Sacramental sense for in his 63. epist he saith Invenimus Vinum fuisse quod Sanguâ—nem suum dixit i. e. We find that it was the winâ— which he called his blood and in his 76. epist he saith quando domâ—nus appellat panem corpus suum vinum sanguinem populum nostrum quem portabut indioat adunatum i. e. When our Lord calleth the bread his Body and the wine his Blood he signifyeth that we being many are one lump of bread As for the proof of the Mass from St. Andrew I can find no such book and amongst all the Ecclesiastick writters in the first 300. years there was no mention made of him If he making for your behove could be produced as an Author it is strange how Bellarmâ—n hath forgotten to name him So I cannot take this authour off your hand But this is sure Eusebius lib. 8. Dem. Evang. in fine calleth the Bread 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the memorial of his Body the Image of his Body Then it is no sacrifice nor corporally the Body And seeing it is really relatively and symbolically such we would not have it now abused by negligence Origen saith no more hom 13. on Exod. we say no less For Purgatory you cite Tertullian in the second Age and Cyprian in the third neither of which were for it For Tertull. lib. de Patien saith Christum laedimus cum evocatos quosdam ab eo quasi miserandâ—s non aequanimiter accipimus As if they who are called hence and be with Christ were in a pityful state having obtained their desire Phil. 1. 23. and Cyprian de immortalitate saith Ad refrigerium justi vocantur ad supplicium injusti câ—piuntur velocâ—uâ— tutelâ— sidentibus persidis poena i. e. The just aâ—e called to refreshing resâ— the wicked are taken to punishment safety cometh very swiftly to Believers and punishment to unbelievers And Cyprian saith lib. adversus Demetrianum Aevi temporalis fine completo ad aeternae vel mortis vel immortalitatis hospitia divdimur Et ibidem Quando illinâ— excessum fuerit nullus jam locus poenitentiae est nullus satisfactionis â—effectus ad mortalitatem sub ipsa morte transitur i. e. When men depart out of this world there is no place thereafter for repentance no effect of satiâ—faction at death men pass over to immortality It is true they grant Probatory afflictions and the siery tryal here Some of them also deny full fruition to the Elect till the day of judgement But for Purgatory till the sixth Age it was not known then Gregory the first mantained it Dial. lib. 4. cap. 39. Neither can that prison Matth. 5 be understood of Purgatory as shal be afterwards proved I shal close this point with Iustin Murtyr resp ad Orthod quest pag. 75. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. After the departure of the Soul out of the Body immediatly there is a separation of the just from the unjust for the souls of the righteous are brought to Paradise and the souls of the wicked are taken to hell Then you prove Prayer to the dead from Clemens epist 1. de Sancto Petro and Tertul. de cor mil. I shal not insist on that Apocryphal Epistle but for Tertullian he and others prayed for a joyful Resurrection to them And hence are some Panegyricks concerning them which were rather to profit themselves then the party deceased as Augustin telleth us in Enchir ad Laurentium they were Consolationes vivorum You offer also to make out by St. Dennis that they in primo primitiva Ecclesia prayed to Saints and Angels As for the first citation to you who professe to believe the Scriptures of GOD and do yet stumble weak ones with thornie questions concerning their authority it will not be unexpedient for me who cannot find such a writter in the second Centurie for you cannot mean Dionysius the Areopagit who lived in the 1. Centurie nor Dionysius Alexandrinus who lived in the 3. Centurie To enquire I say of you whither was there such a Saint And if that be made out whither did he writ any book at all And if so if this be the book which you call his I will not take the Popes word for it nor yours seeing both Hierom and Bellarmin leave him out of their history When these questions are answered I shal prepare an answer for his testimony But it is more strange that you cite Origen who writting against the Pagan Celsus in this point of prayer to Saints and Angels lib. 8. pag. 432. 433. saith expresly to whom we give the first fruits to him we send our prayers to the great high Priest Jesus the Son of GOD who is entered into Heaven This is like your testimonie from Dudithius if that be Origen you cite for Origens Threni or Liment to be spurious some judicious do averre as Erasmus so Barronius tom 2. ad annum 253. here is a retractation Your own Salmeron telleth us to more purpose the reason why in the primitive times there was no invocation of Saints and Angels Quia occasio daretur gentibus put andi sibi exhibitos multos Deos pro multitudine divorum disp 8. iâ— 1. Tom. 2. As for the sign of the Cross it is true Tertullian is for it in these places named and it was in use amongst Christians when they had to do with Pagans and some who are not of your communion make use of it
as yet others think that seeing the occasion of the first making use of it is removed it not being commanded in Scripture and much abused by you that it is more expedient to leave it undone But your abuse of it is not approved by Tertullian so his testimony maketh nothing for you who do so And for Images it is an impudencie in you to say that there were any Images set up in Churches the first 300. years what ever draughts might be in dwelling houses or cups For proving your shamelesness in this assertion hear your own Lorinus on 17. Acts on the 15. verse c. where wit Vasquez and Durand he telleth that all Images were forbidden under the Law and citeth for it Ex. 20. 3. then he sheweth that under the Gospel in the first Centuries there were no Images for this he citeth Lactantius and Tertullian Augustin and Arnobius contra Gentes who saith that Gentiles exprobrabant Christianis quod nullam Dei formarent picturam occultabant quod celebant i. e. The Gentiles did upbraid the Christians because they would not make any Image of GOD they did hide what they worshipped That Adrian fancying the Christians as Pagans suspected did build his Temple without any Images And in Constantius his time the Christian Chappels were called Templa Adrians Then he bringeth the decree of the Council of Eliberis where it was provided that there should be no Images in Churches Ne quod colitur adoratur in parietibus depingatur i. e. that which is worshipped and adored should not be painted on walls This council was celebrated in the time of Constantine in the fourth Centurie and this is the 36. Canon of it And till the second Council of Nice which was in the 800. year Image worship was abommable in the Christian Church How then can you assert so great and absurd an untruth Read ancient History and acknowledge your errour As for Free-will we do not deny it in some senseâ— and in the Jesuited sense none of these you cite did mantaine it Augustin against Julian and Pelagius opposed that so do we This is well proved by Jansenius Yprensis in his defence of Augustins doctrine against the Jesuits Vincentius Lyrinensis adversus Haereses lib. 1. cap. 34. proveth that Pelagius was the first inventer of your Free-will which is Arbitrium servum As for the merit of works Just in Marty understood not by it meritum condigni but the obtaining of the end of their faith and labours So Augustin saith the Apostle Paul electionis vas meruit nominari lib. de praed gratia and Cyprian readeth that 1. Tim 1. 13. I obtained mercy misericordium merui You keep the words which some ancients used and we the sense so ye deceive the People In your sense they absolutly renounced it Origen in epist ad Rom. lib. 4. suith Vix mihi suadeo quod possi ullum opus esse a nobis quod ex debito remunerationem Dei poscat i. e. I can hardly perswade my self that there can be any work which of debt deserveth a reward from GOD. Bernard in Cant serm 67. non est in quo gratia intret ubi jam meritum occapavit i. e. Grace hath no place to enter where merit hath occupied the room Your own Ferus on Matth. chap. 20. S. saith GOD hath freely promised he rendereth freely if therefore thou wouldest keep the grace and favour of GOD make no mention of thine own merits For out of mercy he will give all yet thou must not be the slower to good workes yea welshould be more fervent for doing of them as becometh us well who have so bountiful a Lord. Which words the Spanish inquisitors would have expunged Lastly You prove the fulfiling of the law even as the rest by Tertallian and Origen who say nothing but that through Christ who strengthneth us we can do all things This is the word of GOD Phil. 4. 13. which we will not disclaim But the man who can fulfil the Covenant of workes needeth not a Saviour Is it like they would hold it in your sense seeing they disclaime merit and said with us In many things we offend all and when we have done all we are unprofitable servants Where is perfection then The saw may be so farre fulfilled as to make us acceptable to GOD through Christ but not to justifie us Now let the Reader judge impartially whither it was ignorance in me to say that the primitive Church knew not Popery and that the negatives of our Religion could not be allowed by them more then by us What they say obiter concerning any thing of that kind is for us more then for Papists Papists Quest 8 Question eight How prove you the tenets of the Church of Rome to be contrar to Scripture Answer Your doctrine forbidding Laicks Prote ∣ stants Answer as ye call them to read and search the word of GOD is against the command of Christ Iohn 5. 39. this is written Scripture which ye contradict by your practice c. Reply In your eight Answer you are so Papists Reply confused in your method so weak in your citations and even sometimes so contradicting to your self that it needeth no other censure Yet I will reflect briefely on every thing You object first our doctrine forbidding Laicks as we call them say you as if there were no true distinction between Church men and Laicks i. e. a Minister and a Cobler in Ecclesiastical functions To read the Scripture is against the command of Chrâ—st Where first you object as if there were any article of the Cathoilck Church forbidding them to read Scripture absolutly She forbiddeth them to read Scripture without leave of their Pastours and Directours which is easily granted to any judicious person as all the Converts of this Countrey know whereof the greatest part have seen your errours in Scripture and detasted them Your citation is weak and can prove nothing till it be made out whither the words be imperatively taken or rather indicatively Ye search the Scriptures so Cyril interpreteth it lib. 3. in Iohn chap. 4. To whom Beza assenteth advertisirg that the word should be rather taken in the indicative mood So that you see I must have some other infallible judge to tell me in which of these two senses it should be taken before I build any thing on this place Thirdly As Christ in the same chapter proveth himself to be the Son of GOD by four testimonies First Of John the Baptist Secondly Of his works and miracles Thirdly Of his Heavenly Father Fourthly Of Scripture So do we prove by four like testimonies the Roman Church First By the authority of the Fathers Secondly By miracles in all ages Thirdly By the authority of GOD clearlie saying in all ages by her unitie sanctity in fallibility This is my Spouse Fourthly Of Scriptures exhorting all to read and hear them not superficially turning and shuffling them over as the Jews do to this day and yet
speaketh 1. Pet. 4. 17. your own Pererius interpreteth not this place 1. Cor. 3. of purgatorie You say Ancients interpret these Scriptures so namely Augustin Tertullian Hierom Cyprian I would first enquire at you how you can cite the Commentars of any privat men on Scripture Seeing you averre before confidently that the sensing of Scripture and interpretation thereof belongeth to the Church of Rome and to no privat persons Augustin Cyprian c. were not the Church of Rome but privat Doctours Yea they were never members of this Church as it is now constituted being great strangers to supream infallibility and universal Monarchy engrossed in the person of the Pope They lived in Africk the one at Hippo the other at Carthage and were Bishops there Tertullian was a Presbyter and forced to leave Rome for the aspersions cast upon him by some envyous Doctors there which was the first thing tempted him to Montanism as it is told in his life he was formerly free of it When you interpret Scripture you are bound to bring one of the Popes decretals or a Canon authorised by him for the meaning of a text otherwise you are inconsistent with your own opinion But that which now you bring from these ancients is as I conceive fully satisfied and explained in the eight Duply to whâ—ch I referre the Reader You bring back hither and thither with your impertinencies All you have to do here if you would keep rule is to answer Scripture arguments seeing these taken from antiquitie have been debated formerly in their own room Yet to tell Augustines mind about the sense of the 1. Cor. 3. it is not so as you cite it he thinketh the text hard and difficult but doth not build Purgatory on it he is in that at a stand what to say and will not define the interpretation but modestly thus Non ideo confirmo quoniam non refello Aug. de Civit. DEI. lib. 21. cap. 24. Tertullian is so far from it that he saith lib. de patientia Christum laedimus c. We wrong Jesus Christ if we shal say that these who have their sins forgiven are in a state to be pitied But in Purgatory if the suffering be so great they are to be pitied Cyprian de mortalitate is of the same mind all who are in Christ when they go hence reign with Christ Ejus est mortem timere qui ad Christum nolit ire Let him fear death who will not go to Christ You say these in Purgatoty are in Christ then saith Cyprian they go to Christ not to Purgatory Justin Martyr saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 immediatly after death the souls of the righteous go to Paradise and of the unrighteous to hell resp ad Orthod quast VVhen you would have them then holding Purgatory you bring them under contradiction and are bound to reconcile them with themselves for any such clashings you may thank your Index Expurgatorius The Fathers indeed speak of probatory mending fire here of loca refrigerii before the Resurrection of Fluvius igneus after it this is the opinion of some Hence ariseth your citations but for Purgatory they knew it not It is the Blood of Jesus Christ which taketh away the guilt and filth of sin Now that this erroneous opinion maketh men loose reason proveth it For men who believe that they may live loosely here and yet go to heaven are tempted to prophainness ipso facto whatever be pretended to the contrar especially when it is told them withall that some Soul-Masses for a little money may be had to free them quickly thence And our experience in this land maketh it out also because many loose livers hanker after Poperie and hate to be reformed You answere just nothing to the 9. Heb. for if judgement cometh immediatly after death where is Purgatorie then That judgement is not temporane but eternall it is one with Eccl. 11. 9. And I would gladly know if this Tenet can hold with that scripture Rev. 14. 13. They who die in the Lord rest from their labours And if so they are not punished henceforth This purgatory fire of your own kindling maketh a hot kitchin to the Pope but purgeth no soul at all For Purgatory was noâ— decreed to be de side till the Councill of Lateran under Innocent the 3. the Florentine under Eugentus the 4. and the Tridentine under Pius the 4. so it is not old Many of the Fathers supposed that the saints received not full reward till the resurrection Aug. though dubious about it else where yet in one place De verbis Apostoli serm 18. sayeth There be two places there is not a third we are ignorant of a third meaning Purgatorie yea we find in scripture that there is none such In the Greek Fathers there is no mention of it saith Roffensis And whereas it is objected that Augustin said Masse for his mother Monica He sayeth only that seeing she prayed so frequently for him he was bound to send his best wishes after her if they could avail But speaketh very doubtfully of the matter in his book de civit DEI. Beside the Ancients prayed for these whom they thought to be in Abrahams bosom for a joyful Resurrection and full fruition to them The prayers of the Romanists are for men in miserie prisons in a place next to hell So the one and other differ much But the matter is that your gold groweth here it is your livelyhood your Mexico this maketh you so contend for it Seventeenthly Ye commit murther and § 17 Inst. allow it contrar to the sixt Command witnes the Massacre at Paris commended by the popish Oratour Muretus whose book is Printed by authority Reply The testimonie of a privat Oratour doth not make the articles of our faith And Papists Reply if this fact was done by privat Animosities neither Religion nor reason can allow it Nor do any Catholicks approve it except they who think it was done by the Kings authority to punish rebellious subjects whom he could not otherwise crub Duply This Oration of Muretus wherein he commendeth the Massacre is licensed Prote ∣ stants Duply and Printed by authority so it is not the meer testimonie of a privat Oratour but publickly allowed And whereas you say that no Catholicks approve it except these who think it was done by the Kings authority I answer the fact was clearly murther a breach of the sixth Command and admit the French King who then was young had consented to it will that justifie the breach of a divine precept How can that consist with Acts 4. 19. I am bound actively to obey my Superiours in the Lord ad aras religion reason craves no more Your own Thuanus hath not this poor evasion for justiâ—ying this murther but calleth it a bloody barbarous fact to murther men living peaceably And that universal flux of blood which flowed so aboundantly from all the passages of that young King at his death proclaimeth more lowdly to the world
prophecies The Roman Trash may well make seeing men blind but will never make blind men see the right way Fourthly We do not deny ministeriall An. 4. helps to unlettered people for such are commanded Heb. 13. 7. and 17. provided alwayes their faith be resolved into the word of God at least interpretative virtualiter What ever means be used this milk of the Word is the authentick instrument which begetteth faith and it must be received not as the word of man albeit the treasure be in earthen vessels and the milk in a wooden pape The difference of assent betwixt the learned and the unlearned is only accidental and modal the one being more express then the other we Catechise and instruct the ignorant and require them to hear the Church and follow their guides so far as they follow Christ 1. Cor. 11. 1. we hold forth coâ—munia fidei motiva interna 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 inward testimonies the common motives of faith reasons and testimonies of old and late and what ever may help their edification but we dare not lead them from the Scripture to men neither will the interpretation of the Scripture permit us to admit of an other determiner And it may be wel enough known by them who understand these languages that these Greek and Hebrew words do thus signifie as they are translated without the help of an infallible decree of Pope or Council thereanent Without this also GODS word can discover it self to be from GOD as hath been shewed already Reason 5. Reading of the Scripture with the privat spirit and taking it up as every one Pa. Rea. 5 thinketh maketh all the controversies in Christendom daily multiplying both Heresies and sects Luther no sooner swerved from the Church and denyed her authority but as soon he broached this principle That every man might take the Bible follow that interpretation which after due diligence used he thought best whereupon preseÌ„tly did spring up an incredible number of different sects Antimonâ—ans Osiandrians Majorists Synergists c. Now hear what Luther himself said of Calvins heresie Tom. 7. fol. 380. I scarce ever read saith he of a more deformed heresie which presently in the beginning was divided into such variety of sects as so many Toads and such disagreement of opinions not one like to another You see then how the word cannot be the determiner of faith which all these sects take with you for their rule yet alone will never agree â—hem As for that you say the scripture hath Divine authority Heavenly majestie and maketh Spiritual impressions on the soul all this I grant if once a man know or believe it to be the word of GOD. Answer First All this is answered to the fourth or fifth question and should not be Pro. An. 1 brought in here yet passing the digression and informality which I hope the Reader cannot impute to me the Defender I answer to the 5. Reason the Scriptures in the Primitive Church were published â—o all this your own Azâ—â—iâ—s confesseth Iust mor. p. 1. lib 8. c. 26. â—he Scriptures in the Primitive Church were to be published throughout all Nations and therefore made common in the most famouâ— languages In Hierom and Chrysostoms dayes the ley people were exercised in reading the Scriptures Espencaeus saith Comment on Tit. 3. 2. it is manifest by the Apostles doctrine Col. 3. 16. and by the practise of the Church that the publies use of reading the scriptures was then permitted to the people The Council of Nice decreed saith Agrippa that no Chriâ—tian shoulâ—â—e without a Bible Augustin alloweth de Doct. Christi the use of scriptures to all for he saith they are not so hard but every one by his use making of them may attain to so much knowledge of them as may further him in his salvation Chrysost hom 3. de Lizaro exhorts all men and women yea Tradsmen to get Bibles Now I pray you to what purpose if they dare not search for the sense of them Secondly It is denyed that when privat Pro. An. 2 men search the Scriptures this is an act of a privat spirit †It may be privat respectupersonae which is publick rationâ— modi medii è contra for such may pray and have the spirit of grace and supplication poured forth on them according to the promise Zach. 12. 10. and none call that a privat spirit so they may interpret Scripture by Scripture and have the gift of it Hear your own Gerson primâ— part de ex doct Si aliquis non authorizatus sit excellenter in sacra scriptura eruditus plus credendum est ejus assertioni quam Papae declarationi i. e. If any not ordained be well instructed in the holy Scriptures his assertion is more to be believed then the Popes declaration Secondly Our Divines distinguish well three sorts of interpreters the first is extraordinar and miraculous 1. Cor. 12. 30. The second is ordinar and ministerial 1. Cor. 14. 32. The spirits of the Prophets are subject to the Prophets The third is of privat persons who are commanded to â—ry the spirits and are commended for so â—â—ing Aâ—t 8. 28. 29. Aâ—t 17. 11. The first kynd of interpretation is gone the two next are in use as yet but the one is subservient to the other Thirdly â—he different sects that lay claim to Scripture cannot deprive us of the priviledge to search it and make use of it Will any man approve this argument Meat and drink is abused by some therefore none should eat or drink If the matter be indifferent and subject to abuse then we are to restrain our selves of liberty in the use of that in different thing Vâ—tandum estlicituÌ„ non necessâ—riuÌ„ propter vicinitatem illiâ—â—ti Aug. de câ—v Dei lib. 15. But when it is necessar necessitate precepti medii by necessity of precept and mean who can forbid the use of a necessar mean Now it is most necessar to improve the Scriptures by reading understanding application meditation and blessed is he who doth so day and night sitting or standing Deâ—t 6. 6. It is absurd to say â—lbeit Luther and Calvin did differ in some points that he fathered the sects of Germany on Calvin who was as free of Munster malady as the man unborn and was malleus haereticorum as his learned writtings testifie aboundantly In that place cited he speaketh of the swarms of sects which were indeed monstrous like at that time but never imputed it to the use making of Scripture for then he would not have understood himself nor could he blame Calvin for it upon that account seeing it was his own tenet Now Reader stay and impartially consider the weaknes and impertinency of these 5 reasons why our faith should not be resolved into the Scriptures and determined by them For the sume of all is thus concluded The word of GOD is not wel understood by some is evil translated by others and
unlearned as well as the unstable wrest the scripture to their own destruction then Scripture can neither be the determiner of faith nor the judge of controversies to them and so they must have another both to instruct the ignorant and settle the unstable as we must all have some infallible judge to know who wrest the Scripture who not otherwise we may well agree in the letter but we will never agree in the sense and meaning thereof But as much say you as containeth the way to salvation is plain so that he may runne who readeth it Sir doth it not belong to salvation that there be three persons in God one in Christ that Baptism is a Sacrament c. Now where find you this in Scripture either running or siting Or if Scripture be so plaine clear as ye make it why be there so many Comments on it among your own men and so different Why is there amongst Protestants 200. expositions upon these four words This is my Body As Cusaâ—us in his holy court observeth Answer first I am glade that the written Pro. An. 1 word of GOD pleaseth you so who have all this time spent words to throw all power out of its hand and hang it at the Popes foot But you say it refuteth what was said formerly This cannot be made good for still I said it was the rule of faith to right discerners and sometime you grant this as in the latter part of your fifth Reason whereby indeed you refute all you have said and yeelds the cause fully Now what contradiction can be here The scripture is the rule to all right discerners and as many as walk according to this rule peace shal be on them but men who wrest the word unlearned unstable soules fall into perdiâ—ion for abuse of the word and destroy themselves hence proceedeth many controversies Is it not a strange consequence to inferre thence that these unlearned unstable soules should have another rule and another judge In the 19. of Luke v. 27. it is said by our Lord that his enemies who would not have him to reign over them should be brought forth and slain before him will it therefore follow that he should not reign over them Or that they Jure should have another King The case is just alike here It is granted that many have their consciences seared 1. Tim. 4. 2. are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 2. Tim. 3. 8. self-condemned Tit. 3. 11. under stronge delusions 2. Thess 2. 11. Is the Scripture to blame for this You have many faults to that which you like not Hear Optatus Milevitanus adversus Paliner Donatistam Vos dicitis licet nos non licet inter licet vestrum non licet nostrum nutant animi populorum If you seek a judge saith he a Pagan cannot do it nor a Jew they are enemies Christians by their discerning faculty cannot they being impeded studio partium Then upon earth there can be no judge shal we go to Heaven for one Quorsum cum hic habemus iâ— Evangelio testamentum i. e. To what purpâ—se seeing we have the Testament here in the Gospel If there be a contention among brethren saith he quaritur Testamentum the Testament is sought So we must decide our controversies by the Old and New Testament etenim praesentia quae modo facitis futura conspexerat Christus i. e. For Christ did foresee these things as future which ye make to be now present and hath he foreseen it and will he not provide a remedie for it Secondly These unlearned unstable ones Pro. An. 2 who are to be destroyed will not hear understand nor obey his word then is it like that they will understand the voluminous decrees of the Pope May they not wrest his sentence and sense more easily then Scripture words Or dare any say that humane ordinanceâ— will sooner compesâ—e command or regulat them then the word of GOD Thirdly We do not deny Mâ—nisterial Pro. An 3 helps for instructing and seâ—ling the ignorant and unstable nor judicial sentences subaltern and subordinat â—o the law But that there is an infallible man 〈◊〉 to whose sentence I must implicitly submiâ—â—â— is â—â—â—culous to averie it and the broaching of that errour hath occasioned more controversies then were formerly in the Church so far is it from composing differences If ye were more in catechising the unlearned and leâ—s in regal commands the law of GOD would be both better understood and obeyed Fourthly Albeit some places be hard to Pro. An. 4 be understood by the unlearned 1. Pet. 3. 16. other places are not so difficult In the scripture an Elephant may swime and a Lamb may wade And the same particulars you again object are clearly holden forth in scripture as is formerly proved in the vindication of my answer to your 1. Qu. in answer to Rea. 2. Yea the way to salvation is fair and patent there and if we perish our destruction is of our selves seeing that book is not sealed to us Commentaries Church-canons Ecclesiastick sentences are helps and means for edification but scripture is the authentick instrument and all the authority is originally from it And different expositions according to the analogy of faith may be and will be so long as there be diversity of gifts But I ask why ye make use of Commentars Seeing ye resolve all into the sentence of the Pope And why do your Commentators differ so amongst themselves If this hinder not your Ecclesiastick supremacie why should it be brought to weaken scripture authority It is hard to find where you are for sometimes ye would have a judge to authorize scripture to you sometimes you would have only one for the sense of scripture then at last you are for one only to the unlearned and unstable such is your instability in this matter that I wish the word of God may determine you aright in the point Question fourth Were it not better to establish Pa. Qu. 4 a man or an assembly of men judge of Controveâ—sies seeing the Church is the pillar of truth 1. Tim 3. 15. aâ—d hath the promise of presence Matth. 28. 20. then th◠〈◊〉 Sect should be laying claim to the Scripture and yet taking sundry wayes Answer The promulgation of the law is Pro. An. not denyed to the pure Gospel Church truth is mantained and preserved there as the law was keeped in the Ark thus it is called the pillar of it But the Church of Rome is not such being a very strumpet and making the Kings of the earth drunk with the cup of her fornications Rev. 17. 2. thaâ— promise of presence is made to the universal Church but no particular Church such as Rome can claim the measure or duration of it who of these can say that they shal last to the end of the world Albeit Sects lay claim to Scripture yet their abuse cannot take away our lawful use of it To this a Papist replyeth That the question Pap. Reply is not
Councils may erre Ergo the Pope and Council may erre The argument will hold here a divisis ad conjugata as well as thus the Magistrat may be diseased and his council infected therefore both Magistrat and Council are subject to sickness It is a deluding evasion to say that the Councils confirmed by the Pope cannot erre for the Jesuits place the infallibility in the Pope the Parlsians in the Council and they are not agreed in this amongst themselves In the sense of the one a Church Session confirmed by the Pope is as infallible as a Council And in the sense of the other a Council confirmed by a privat Bishop is at infallible as if it were confirmed by the Pope Thus then we argue that must have no entity which can find no subject but Papists cannot agree upon the subject of this infallibility therefore it is not ens Further General Councils have been of this judgement that the Popes consent is not requisit for making their decrees right For in the Council of Chalcedon where were conveened 630. fathers in the year 454. where Martianus the Emperour was present it was contrar to the desire of the Popes Legats appointed that seeing the seat of Rome had no divine warrand for its supremacie Constantinople should have alike priviledges with it This was as full a Council as we read of and yet all these fathers thought the Popes coÌ„sent not necessary for their statutes Yea they declared his supremacie not to be Juris Apostolici in the first Council of Constantinople which was the second generall Council The Councills of Constance and Basil judged the Council to be above the Pope In the first three generall Councills the Pope did not so much as preside in them either by himself or by his legats For in the first presided Hosius Bishop of Corduba In the second Nectaâ—ius Bishop of Constantinople And in the third at Ephesus Cyril Bishop of Alexandria in which Councills Controversies were deterrained by the plurality of suffrages and every one of the fathers there did subscrive their name to the constitutions and conclusions of the Council The council of Trent again did all Proponentibus legatis therefore either it or they were in an errour so not infallible And indeed it is above dispute that the council of Trent was erronious and not the council of Chalcedon in that which Gregory the Great and all ancients so extoll and commend This is said not in the least to derogate from lawfull councills which we judge necessary helps for ordering the effaires of the house of God in diverse exigencies Yea we give more to the foure Generall Councills then Papists doe for they cast both at the second and fourth But we have another judge and determiner the Scripture of God Augustin confirmeth this Nec ego nicaenum nec tu debes Ariminense tanquaÌ„ prajudicaturus †Aug. contra Maxi. Arrian Episcop praeferre consilium nec ego hujus auctoritate nec tu illius detineris Scripturarum auctoritatibus non quorumcunque propriis sed utrisque communibus testibus res cum re causa cum causa ratio cum ratione consentiat i. e. Neither would I preferre the Nicen nor ought you as prejudged to preferre the Arimin council I am not holden by this or thou by that but by the authority of the Scriptures which are witnesses common to all appropriat to none let one thing agree with another cause with cause reason with reason Thirdly As to the third thing proposed The Church is not appointed to be obeyed Pro. An. 3 but in subordination to the law of God for I know not the Church but by the word therefore I cannot obey it but by it also Secondly Subjects should not judge the law authoritatively If thou judge the law thou art not a doer of it Iames 4. 11. The word of God is the law and all churches are subject to it Thirdly The Text you cite the 17. of Deut. from the 8. v. to the 13 where the people are commanded to go to the Priests for decision of controversiies hath this expresly in it v. 11. According to the sentence of the law which he shall teach thee Cajetan upon the place sayeth That in the Hebrew it is super oâ— legis ideo doctrina eorum esset conformis divinae legi There doctrine of decision should be warrandable by the law Glossa ordinaria explaineth the place thus non dicitur tibi ut obedias nisi â—uxta legens docuerint i. e. thou art not commanded to obey if they teach not according to the law Lyra is of the same judgement si dicant falsum non sunt credendi if they speak false they are not to be believed In Mal. 2. 7. The Lord sheweth that the Priests lips should preserve knowledge where he declareth not what was for they had gone out of the way at that time but what should be Ribera saith the words are not to be read in the present but in the future tense and according to Cyril he is called the Messenger of the Lord because he should give men of the oracles of God as he hath received them from the Lord. Also that place Matth. 23. 2. where Church rulers are appointed to be heard when they siâ— in Moses chair Theophylact expoundeth iâ— quando docent ea quae continentur in lege when they teach the things contained in the law O if your Scribes and Pharisees would do so they might be better heard That place 2. Chr. 19. 8. 11. concerning Amaziah who was over them in all matters of the Lord holdeth only forth this that Magistracy and Ministry are distinct offices And in the church of Jerusalem albeit the Apostles were infallible yet they proceed according to the word and built their sentence on the Prophets Acts 15. 14. these places prove that implicit obedience is not to be given to any Church rulers And the Bâ—reans were commended for searching the Scriptures when the message was delivered to them How gross then is Bellarmin who saith †Bell. lib. 4. de â—ont cap. 5. Sâ— Papa erraret praecipiendo vita prohibendo virtutes tenetur Ecclesia credere virtutes esse malas vitia bâ—nâ— If the Pope saith he should coÌ„mend vice and call it good which they grant he may do notwithstanding of his infallibility then people were bound to obey and call vice good Valentia saith more that the people are bound without any enquiry Valent. Tom. 3. disp 1. disp 7. qu. 3. Punct â— to erre with their rulers and errores corum in tali causa sunt actus Christianae obedientiae their errours are acts of Christian obedience Aeternae vitae meritoriae deserving eternal life When Papists speak so great absurdities what will they not do for their interest Fourthly As to the fourth thing proposed Pro. An. 4 the Church of Christ is to be ruled by its officers lawfully called but the government of it here is not Monarchical
Praxeas the defence oâ— Christians against Idolatry c. The Martyr Cyprian who lived anno 258. writteth some eplstles treatises and sermons about the cases of his time Lactantius and Arnobius flourished in the beginning of the fourth Centurie and did writ against the Gentiles but the Popish trash was unknown to them So it is not strange albeit the Negarives of our Religion were not handled directly by the Fathers seeing then the Popish controversies were not started however the Jesuits do wâ—est some sayings of these Fathers for their own ends yet an attentive Reader will find that they make not for them as Scultetus and Dr. Forbes Dr. Usher and Dr. Morton have sufficiently proved In the following ages they had to do with Arrius Macedonius Nestorius Eutiches but Popery then was under the hatches and the decrees of the Trent Council wholly unknown Further controversies betwixt us and Papists can hardly be decided by the Fathers for some of them made retractations others held forth the opinion of others frequently then what they propose sometime is esteemed by them probable not certain and all of them Printed since the Trent council have been castrated by the Popish Index expurgatorius Therefore they cannot be thought the sittest Umpyres in our present debates neither are they made judges either by the Popish partie or ours for they appeal to the Pope we to the Scriptures and do make use of them as Commentators and historians only Further the Fathers desire us to look on them only as such I shal ciâ—e three testimonies proving this to the full One is that of Augustin in his opist to Hierom concerning the interpretation of the 2. chap. to the Galatians When he is pressed with the testimonie of old authours Ego didici hunc honoreÌ„ deferre tantuÌ„ Scripturarum libris qui Cano ni ci appellantur ut nullum eorum authorum in scribendo aliquid errasse firmâ—tâ—r credaâ— nec arbitror mi frater te velle tuos libros sic lâ—gi tanquam Prophetarum Apostolorum i. e. I have learned to give that honour onlâ— to the books of Scripture which are canonick thâ—t their authours have not errod And a little thereafter I do not think my brother that you would have your books so read as the books of the Prophets and Apostles The second testimony is in his third Epistle to Fortunatus Nec quorumlibet disputationes tanquam Scripturas Canonicâ—s habere debemus ut non liceat salva honorisicentia quae iis debetur aliquid in eorum scriptis improâ—are si forte aliter senserint quam veritas habet talis ego sum in scriptis aliorum tales volo esse lectores meorum i. e. We ought not to look on the writtings of men as the Scriptures of GOD but may disprove that which is not truth in their books if they have not set down the truth such I am in the writings of others such I desire to be the readers of my own The third testimony is that of Hierom lib. 2. contra Ruffinum where speaking of Origen and other Fathers he saith fierâ— potest ut simpliciter â—rrarint vel alio sensâ— scripsâ—rint vel à librariis imperitis eorum scripta paulatim corrupta sunt vel antequam Arrius natus sit minus caute loquâ—ti sint i. e. It may be they have erred and spoken in another sense or their books have been corrupted or before Arrius they have not spoken so warily on the point If then we hold Fathers in their own room according to their desire no wrong is done to them Fourthly That none think we disside the Fathers or Councils it will be found that pure antiquity savoureth us more then Popery This you deny and cites for you Beza his epist ad Dudithium whereby your studied endeavour to deceive people may appear for Beza there is only answering an objection brought in amongst others by Dudithius for resolution that he might be confirmed in the faith by him Wherein Beza doth judiclously give resolution Will it then follow that Dudithius was of this opinion So deal you with Martyr and Chemnitius who assert no such thing It is known both of them were good Antiquaries and confirm our tenets by several testimonies of Ancients It is like you have taken these citations from your Index and not from the Authours Neither Luther Calvin Whitgift Fulke or any reformed Divine hold from Fathers or Councils their due Yea we reverence them more then ye do You bring the four Councils for the Popes universal supremacie and infallibility If this be not it which you intend to prove your answer meereth noâ— mine This is a negative of our Religion was it heard of the first 300 years You say not so But in the next 300. years was the Popes universal supremacie or infallibility heard of This you alleage and by providence contradict your self it is known that in the Council of Nice no mention is made of an universal far less infallible Pope You cite the 29. Canon of the Nicaen Council whereas there were but 22. of them in whole saith Ruffinus lib. 1. cap. 6. Their sixth Canon is far from that If that had been in their Creed they needed no Council the Pope in Cathedra would have done all And in the council of Constantinople they establish the power of their own Patriarch Why then say you that he was established there universal infallible Monaâ—ch of the whole Church Will ye remember better your connexions Was he Peters successour according to the council of Ephesus Then no universal Monarch He was a Presbyter an Elder not a Lord over GODS heritage see 1. Peter 5. 3. Thirdly Expone this and reconcile it with the Popedom if you can Was he Patriarch of old Rome Then no universal head these two seem to clash and the council wordeth it better But why do you not mention his infallibility in your Reply It is the koy of Popery and let you it thus slip out amongst your hands Not one Father or primitive Council is cited for this The Council of Chalcedon saith expresly that the Pope of Rome hath no priviledge from Christ above others but only because it was the seat of the Roman Empire Act 15. you will not then have the four Councils for you except you coine some new acts as the 29. of Nice By which also it may appear how groundless and vain your boasting is of having 90. Fathers of an 100. for this point The opposition of the Ancients thereto is clearly demonstrated by learned Morton in his Grand Impostor Here that you seem not to be silent you bring forth impertinently these texts of Scripture formerly explained Tell the Church c. To which I referre the Reader for satisfaction there be no more priviledge there concerning the Church of Rome then the Church of SCOTLAND and not so much as it is how constituted and adulterated We do believe an universal Church but it is far from our thoughts that
Christians seeme to be nothing inferiour to Pagans in adoration of their Idols they make them with as much vanity and adore them with as much devotion From Scripture reason antiquity the confession and concession of adverâ—arieâ— it is sure and clear that Papists commit gross Idolatrie from which all good Christians should flee and make their escape Fifthly Ye mulitat the Sacrament of the § 5. Inst Supper contrar to the institution of Jesus Christ Matth. 26. 27. by with-holding the Cup from the people yea contrar to the doctrine of the Apostle Paul which be received from the Lord 1. Cor. 11. 25. where all the Communicants for the most were common Professours And albâ—iâ— our Lord command this to be done till he come again without any substantial alteration yet acrilegiously hoc non obstante as saith your Council of Constance ye with-hold the Câ—p â—rom the people and give them only the Bread The answer given to this is as followeth that Papists Reply Protestants in denying real Presence against the express words of Scripture This is my Body this is my Blood which is shed for you not only mutilat the Sacrament but take it clear away You give sufficient occasion to other Haereticks to say that Christ was no otherwise in the Crib or the Cross then ye say that he is in the Sacrament Scripture not being more clear for the one then the other So that denying the real presence ye destroy and ruine in a manner the incarnation and very ground of Christianity But Catholicks neither take it away from any nor give it mutilat Seeing they profess to give Christs glorious and living Body which is not seperat from the Blood and who so receiveth the one receiveth the other It was instituted not only for a Sacrament but for a sacrifice and so I grant that both kynds is requisit on the Altar but it should nor be given to every one otherwise the very Disciples of the Apostles had not known how it should be given For St. Dennis lib. de Ecclesia he asserteth the communion of Saints under one kind and St. Cyprian de Lapsis affirmeth the same of the sick Yea when Christians in the Primitive Church in the time of persecution did carry it home they did eat it but under one kind as Tertullain telleth lib. ad Uxorem More Christ himself did give it under one kind Luke 24. verse 30. as learned Fathers expound And the Apostles Acts 2. 42. and Acts 20. 7. who then can challenge a necessity of takâ—ng both kinds What St. Paul did then was lawful But what Christ and his Apostles did was no less which sheweth that the Church way follow either of these examples for good reasons as she thinketh â—iâ— Answer Your mutilation of the Sacrament is so clear that I admire how you can deny Prote ∣ stants Duply it did not the Council of Constance establish it hoc non obstante i. e. notwithstanding the institution c. Your citations for proof are mismarshalled For first you cite St. Dennis Cyprian Tertullian and then Scripture which sheweth your respects for the word But I cannot follow your Method in this Therefore know that the place Luke 24. v. 30. maketh nothing for you You say Fathers interpret it so but tell us not who they are so their interpretation is no more but your word but to shew that there be no mention in that place of the Sacrament First There was no cup at all there at least none is mentioned How then can you make it a Sacrament seeing you say to us that both kinds are necessar to a sacrifice and the Sacrament of the Supper is such say you Reconcile your self with your self if you can Here there was no Sacrifice Ergo no Sacrament Secondly It is sure this was an ordinary meal honoured with Christ his presence And for proof of this read Jansenius on these words There be some saith he who would take an argument from this place that it is lawful under one kind to give or receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist which opinion is neither certain nor hath it any liklyhood of truth We are commanded to eat and drink at that table how we shal make eating eating and drinking too saith he can hardly be perceived That breaking of bread Acts. 2. 46. is interpreted to be eating their meat at home with gladness and singleness of heart Oecumenius Lyra Cajetan Carthusian say it is only meaned de communi victu non de Eucharistia So saith Lorinus also on the text Existimo hic de Eucharistia non esse sermonem sed de victu quotidiano vel convivio quod 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 appellant So that place Acts 20. Lyra Carthusianus Cajetanus make it corporal refection only for they say the Disciples did conveen to eat with Paul before he went away and this is proved from the 11. v. But grant that place Acts 20. to be meaned of the Sacrament which is probably mantained by others it will no more follow that the Apostle did mutilat it there then that he preached without Prayer seeing the one is no more mentioned then the other Lorinus saith he could not make use of this text for Communion sub una specie against an adversary Your citation from St. Dennis maketh little for you For supposing his testimony to be â—eal the administration of it to Infants was contrary to the institution as well as under one kind We know Infants can drink before they can eat if any such thing was it is liker an administration to Infants then to discerning Christians It is true that they used to carry home the bread as you imply from Tertullian and Cyprian but did alwayes take the cup in praesentia But to put this out of doubt see Cassander Consult 22. Communion under one kind was not in the Church saith he till Aquinas his time anno 1265. And is it not against your light and reason then to argue so against the institution of Jesus Christ Our judgement about the presence of Christ in the Sacrament will be heard a none but it will be no ground for you to mutilat divine ordinances and clip treacherously the King of Saints his coin Sixthly Ye adde to the Sarament of Baptism § 6. Inst Matthew 3. 11. Here your Reply is that there is no command Papists Reply of Christ against it and if it be against Christs command because he hath not commanded it then it will follow that to call Baptism a Sacrament is against Christs command for neither hath he commanded this but by his Church which also commanded that Answer Here we have consitentem reum that 〈◊〉 Christ hath not commanded salt Prote ∣ stants Answer 〈◊〉 c. to be added in the administration of the Sacrament If it were a circumsâ—â—â—ce of the action the true Gospel Church 〈◊〉 command theâ—e But it is a material point of the work and by parity of reason ye may â—â—de â—â—lt spâ—â—tle oyle
as appeareth from Aug. contra Cresconium lâ—b 2. cap. 3. and ep 48. This was one of the weapons whereby they did bâ—at the Donatists Answer The ground of separation of the Donatists was the personall vices of men Prote ∣ stants Answer not the doctrine professed in the Church For in that they agreed with the universall Church as is clear from the above mentioned ep Now we did not separat from Rome because their Popes whom they take for a patron have been Atheists Hereticks denyers of the soules immortalitie Whore mongers c. as their own writters confess in the lives of Silvester 2. Alexander 6. Iohn 22. and many moe but because ye apostatized from the Apostles doctrine and corrupted the worship miserably so these testimonies concern not us Secondly If interrupted succession make void the Ministry ye Papists have none at Ans 2. all For ye often had Anti-Popes and the Councill at Pisa deposed two Popes at once as Hereticks departing from the faith The Councill of Constance deposed Iohn 23. for denying the immortality of the soul and the resurrection Behold then your succession and the infallibility of your Popes Eugenius the fourth was deposed by the Council of Basil and all the following Popes were his successours albeit the Council judged Faelix the fifth to be Pope Yea further this place hath vaiked for many years together so that a line of immediat successours cannot be drawn by your selves Thirdly We have a lawful Ministry as Ans 3. powerful as the world affordeth honoured by the blessing of the Lord by begetting souls to himself and many can from their experience say that it hath been the power of GOD to their salvation how then can you challenge our Ministry Is not this near of kine to that old Anti-Christian question proponed to our Master by what authority dost thou these things And if personal succession had such weight as you say the Priesthood under the law had been at a great loss For the line of it was interrupted oftner then once before the coming of Christ yet he commendeth submission and obedience to them so long as they did sit in Moses chair and no further Matth. 23. 1. So that in Ministers it is the Doctrine and not the Genealogy of persons that is so much regarded Reply In your eleventh Answer you grant personal vices are not a sufficient ground Papists Reply of sepaâ—ation from the Church and say that Protestants did only separat themselves from the worship miserablie polluted and because the Roman Church had Apostatized from the Apostolick Doctrine But Sir let me ask you when the Catholick Roman Church which before your Reformation at least was a true Church Apostatized And who was a competent judge to declare her Apostacie and give you leave to separat Was â—t Scripture as according to your first rule you must say Then I ask if two or three under pretence of a Reformation may adhere to what they think to be in Scripture against the judgement of the whole Church at that time Which â—ssuredly all must grant who teach that the true Church may erre and so give the same libertie to all Sectaries which they take so boldly to themselves But albeit you say your separation was not from our personal vyces yet you impute in the by going heresie denying of the souls immortalitie whoredom to two or three of our Popes Silvester the second Alexander the sixth John the twenty two How justly we shal presently see But however this were true it could no more wrong the Popes authority in his Canonical decrees then Davids adultery or Solomons Idolatrie in penning Scripture Neither is it a great wonder that amongst 240. Popes there have been two or three evil Since even amongst twelve Apostles there was one Judas Nor do Catholicks canonize all their Popes although for these three whom ye name wicked they have 33. most famous Martyrs and Saints What ever they teach as privat doctors as it mâ—keth no law in the Church so it cannot derogat in the least to their decision and doctrine as Popes But to answer for these three what Martinus Polemius and the Magdeburgh say against Silvester the second as a Magician is known by all the learned to be meer fables imputed to him for his eminent knowledge and learning in the Mathematicks which made the ninth Age wherein he lived to call him a Magician because of its gross ignorance Alexander the sixth is also blamed for lewdness by no impartial writter And what Calvin saith lib. 4. instir against John 22. is known to be errour and lies speaking of him as Pope whatever was his opinion as a privat Doctor of the soul before the day of judgement which he disclaimed to be his at his death professing and protesting that he had never any belief but that of the Catholick Church saith John Williams lib. 11. hist cap. 19. But Hereticks speak of Popes as Rebels of Kings discontented subjects of Ministers of state and criminals of their lawful judges which no wise man will much regard Then to shew that we have not an uninterrupted succession you speak first of Anti-Popes as if they did interrupt the succession of Popes more then Usurpers the succession of Kings Secondly Of Popes deposed by Councils but you cannot instance that any lawful Pope was deposed by any general Council what ever Thirdly You say the See of Rome hath vaiked for many years To which I answer as Kings die not so neither Popes as it doth not interrupt the succession of Elective Kings that after the death of one there be long debate before the Election of another the royal power then residing in the Electours so neither interrupteth it the succession of Popes and their Election You speak nothing of your own succession because ye have none You bragge much of a powerful Ministrie but shews no call you had to the Ministrie from GOD nor his Church so we had good reason to challenge it albeit you call this an Anti-Christian question to ask at new upstarts who pretend to reforme the Church who gave you a call because the Jews had such a question to Christ But Christ John 15. 24. saith if he had not shewed himself to be the Son of GOD by his words and works which none else could do no man had been obliedged to belive him Yet ye will have us to believe you are lawful Ministers without succession or a call and that Luther and Calvin were extraordinarily sealed for Reformation without the least sign mark or miracle shewing that they were sent for that end So that in Ministers you conclude it is the Doctrine more then the Genealogie of persons which is so much regarded As if preaching of true doctrine were sufficiant to make a man a Minister without any ordination or call the Scripture expresseth another thing saying how shal they preach except they be sent And as to seek true successsion of Bishops and Pastours in
and without Christ can do nothing Iohn 15 5. If you say more speak it out for it will be plain Pelagianism Exhorrations and communications are means to make us willing and obedient It is not in our power to think a good thought as of our selves dare you deny this Why then fall you fondly on us speaking with the Scripture Luke 17. 10. By grace we are saved freely through faith and eternal life is the gift of GOD the reward is a free remuneration and may be without our merits we grant free-will in Augustins sense and Jansenius proveth that this is true liberty by arguments which were never yet answered But we do disclaim Jesuitical indifferencie because it taketh away divire providence the power of grace and setteâ—h up anti-providences from the will of man Because we sin willingly who can deny that we are punished justly Neither take we the Scripture Catalogue from the Iewes but make use of reason testimonies from old Writters universal consent to be a porch for eâ—trie to the knowledge of the numerick controversie and how can you say so of our Catalogue seeing we mantain no book to be Scripture but such as ye allow And are ye not helped by the Jewes herein as wel as we Only we lay that the authority of the Scripture dependeth not on humane testimonie as upon its principal foundation nor yet upon unwritten tradition because divine faith must be begotten by a divine testimonie And we believe the Scriptures authority and truth side lâ—â—ina because the Lord hath spoken it In this true faith must be finally resolved else it is not divine It is a calumny to say we patch the Word seeing we make Scripture the only rule of our faith There be none in the Christian Church who adde such patches to the word of GOD as ye Our Reformation had authority both from Heaven and men on earth The Lawes of the Land can restifie this which are yet in vigor for it and against you And there may be new light in time of darkness which was formerly dimmed or put out which light is the good old light proceeding from the Father of lights If ye condemned this the world should have still continued Arrian when it was over-clouded with it and all Reformation even the Scripture one is unlawful see you not your absurdity here Yea it was prophesied Dan. 12. 4. that in the latter times knowledge should encrease and light also be extended but light without verity deserveth not the name Privat men have the liberty of discerning allowed to them Acts 17. 11. 1. Io. 4. 1. Yea such may have publict spirits and be called to publict employments But what you mean by this I conceive not For the Gospel worship which we mantain hath the consent of all the Scriptures Churches and primitive Fathers as is formerly proved to the full We wish the hearts of all our Pastors may be established by grace that they may be subjected to him who hath the government on his shoulder and by their faith working by love glorifie the chief Shepheard of the stock We will not recriminat ralling for railing but it were easie to shew Ye have a Church composed state-wayes Your policie devouâ—eth all pâ—â—ty Your superstitious vowes against marraâ—ge all chastity Your impeaching of the Scriptures all divine verity Your blind allegiance to the Pope all loyalty Your superstitious buskings all puritie Your worship in an unknown tongue all fervencie Your addition to the one Sacrament and mutitation of the other all sincerity Your universal infallible supremacie all primitive antiquity It is not long since this Reply came to my hand at the first view whereof I intended to take in and discuss arguments proposed by Dr. Vane in that Pamphlet entituled The lost sheep found And these contained in another of the same kind called Presbytries tryall And to survey the other two entituled The Touchstone and Fâ—at lux But finding the substance of all these in this reflecter and that he hath little of his own but maketh malt for the most of their barley by answering this all the foure are macerially answered which a discerning Reader will find to be true Now to close I obtest all who read this Vindication of the reformed Religion to consider the cause seriously without partialitie pride passion prejudice Remember that Iames 2. 1. Have not the faith of our Lord Iesus with respect of persons And the spirit of truth lead you into all truth The spirit of errour and lies be rebuked and resisted by the Lord That a pure offering may be offered to Him from the rising of the Sun to the going down thereof FINIS A POSTSCRIPT Containing an Advertisement and Advice to the Merchants of DVNDIE who travell abroad that they be not ensnared with the fopperies of Poperie AFter the writting of this VINDICATION I judged it expedient to give this word of Advertisement and Advice to such as be called by their affairs to negotiaâ— in Countreys where the Popish worship is only professed and mantained Because many travellers return home from these places as that French fool came back from Rome who passing through Ravenna least he should return empty to his friends gathered in that Forrest a multitude of bees and flees which being closed into a cloath bagge he poured forth amongst his relatives to their prejudice and offence And all they gained by his voyage was made up of stings and buzings So when travellerâ— return from forrain Nations either Neutral Nullisidians or leavened with Popish saperstition what is their purchase Nothing that can edifie any Will ever practical Atheism Gallioeâ— temper or tampering betwixt truth and errour advantage a man at the long runne Not at all These will sting like a serpent more then themselves a wound and dishonour may they have by it but nothing else The hazard which some Travellers tunne cannot be unknown to you For the man who in this City hath become Popish and stingeth some is thought by all that know him to have received the first dye thereof abroad when he travelled thither And although the flecks of that pestiferous malady broke nor forth immediatly after his return till the Carduns Maledictus of prejudice against some fellow Citizens made them appear yet there probably he was first infected Now if he who was gifted above many Merchants catched so sore a back-ward fall abroad that he hath now turned his back on that Church wherein he was born and iostered Have ye not reason with full purpose of heart to cleave to the truth of GOD which can only set you free It is not for nought that our Saviour said to his Disciples Luke 17. 32. Remember Lots wife It is certain that the Church of SCOTLAND is a great eye-sore to Papists and they craftily lay snareâ— to seduce her members at home and abroad Their hooks are feathered with variety of colours and the Convent at Rome de Propagan fide furnisheth many Emissaries who
in the Church it should have this weight with us that rashly without grave and diligent enquiry after the truth it should not be rejected by us And whereas it is alleadged there will be no effectual way against Controversies and divisions in religion unlesse some one supream and infallible judge be appointed on Earth in whose â—udgement and decision parties controverting should â—â—st and acquiesce It may be well answered in your own Bellarmin his wordes lib. 2. de Concil cap. 19. It is no wonder if the Church remaine without any humane remedy seeing the welfare of it doth not primarily rely upon humane industrie but upon divine protection seeing its King is GOD therefore may and ought the Church to pray unto God and it is certaine he will care for the well-fare of it Answer second Albeit I cannot comprehend the purpose of this laxe discourse yet Pro. Duply 2 for satisfaction to the Reader I shal inform him in these 5. particulars First what Papists mean by the Church or whither they understand themselves in this Secondly Whither Church officers since the dayes of the Apostles are infallible Thirdly What kind of obedience should be tendered to them Fourthly What government the Christian Church should have whither Papal and Monarchical or Aristocratical and Ministerial Fifthly How that testimony of Augustia non credidissem Scripturae c. is to be understood For the first by the Church all the Jesuits who are the Popes life-guard understand the Pope So Valentia disk Theol. tom 1. disp 1. qu. 1. Coster Enchir de sum Pont Gretser Colloq Ratis Ses 1. Bell. hanketeth in the point for once he saith that the Pope without the Council may determine matters of faith De Christo. lib. 2. cap. 28. and de Concil lib. 2. cap. 17. Against this de verbo Dei lib. 3. cap. 3. he saith the Pope with a Council is the judge of the true sense of Scripture So speaketh this reflecter The Sorbonists Jansenists and others of the Popish partie understand by the Church the present Romish officers assisted by the Pope and stand by the Canons of the Councils of Constance Sess 4. 5. and Basil Sess 2. wherein it was decreed that the Pope should obey the Council The Council of Trent according to its manner is ambiguous herein Sess 4. decr 2. And saith that the Church should judge the true sense of Scripture yet tell us not what they mean by the Church Now whatever way it be taken whither for Pope or Council there must be another judge of controversies otherwise the Church wanted a judge 300 years for there was no such judge then pretending to the infallible supremacie now claimed Secondly The Romish Synagogue headed by the Pope cannot be our judge for they are party partial against whom we have just acception Thirdly Is not this a jugling trick that when controversies occasioned and raised by them are in the Christian Church they will have none to be judge but themselves so they would be sure of the sentence and must suspect their own cause Fourthly If by the Church they mean the Pope as now they mantain it is hard to call him judge of controversies seeing it is a great controversie whither there should be any Pope at all and beyond controversie with us that he is an usurper Fifthly According to the Popish tenet the intention of the Priest is necessar in his ordination in his Baptism succession without interruption is necessar and Simony maketh him no Pope as Gratian telleth from the Canon law causa 2. qu. 1. Now if so he may be a Pagan for who knoweth the Priests intention who baptized him He may be a Laick and yet without ordination upon the same ground if one be such it marreth uninterrupted succession and so ceaseth the Pope Then by your own writters it is clear that many Popes entered by Simony as Barronius testifieth Annal tom 9. ad annum Christi 912. And Alexander the 6. was notorious that way This un Popeth all for it breaketh the chain of succession and leaveth the Church collective without any judge It is clear hence how slipperie the Romish Church is in its foundations seeing he whom they call the Church may be a Pagan Secondly As to the second thing proposed viz. Whither Church officers since the days of the Apostles are infallible The Church whither taken for Pope or Council or Pope Council is not infallible When the Councils condemned hereticks of old they did it not pro arbitratu imperio but judged by the Scriptures which is indeed an infallible rule but the church taken whither for Pope or Council or Pope and Council is not infallible First If the Jewish-church erred in matter of faith and worship then may the christian-church erre also For they had statutes judgements and promises to them were committed the oracles of GOD. Rom. 3. 2. But Aaron and the people erred grosly Ex 32. So did Uriah the Priest 2. Kings 16. May not then Popes erre Seeing Aaron the saint of the Lord was not infallible Yea both Priest and Prophet erred in judgement see Is 28. 7. on which words Sanctius the Jesuit saith Priests Prophets and people were spiritually drunk Did not the Church rulers while the Levitical Priest-hood lasted procure the death of Christ Secondly Under the Gospel Popes and Councils have erred Ergo they are not infallible Tertullian telleth contra Praxetam that Eleutherius the Pope approved Montanus heresie and obtruded it on the Church as his Irenicum Your own Barronius telleth ad ann 302. that Marcellus the Pope sacrificed to Idols Athaudsius †Athanasius in epist ad Solitariam vitam agentes testifieth that Liberius the Pope was Arrian Honorius was condemned in the sixth General Council as a Monothelit Anastasius the Pope saith Alphonsus de cast lib. 5. cap. 25. was Nestorian Now can Monothelism Nestorianism Arrianism Montaaism and Idolatry be â—nherent to a man infallible Or can a chair make that man who is Arrian Orthodoxe or him who sacrificeth to Idols unerring who will believe this Councils may erre adversaries being judges Occam asserteth so much and Petrus Alliaco Cardinalis qu. vespert art 3. for he saith that this promise the gates of hell shal not prevail against the Church is made universo catui fidelium to the whole number of the faithful not to the representative Church which may erre Panor sup 1. part sib decret Dicit Ecclesiam quae non potest errare esse totam collectionem fidelium nam ista est Ecclesia quae non potest errare that is the whole company of believers which cannot erre Nic. de Clemang in his disp with the Parisians saith the promise Matth. 18. as likewise that Iohn 16. The spirit of truth shal lead you into all truth belongeth only to spiritual ones and it were better to be much in fasting and prayer for direction then to bragge we cannot erre So then I reason the Pope may erre